112 posts in this topic

ExpandMyMind 5,365

I will start off by stating that this is in no way a complete chronology of horrible events that Britain has been complacent and often outright responsible for in the past 50-plus years. These are only events that have been lifted from a book (linked below, for those who are interested - to read parts of or buy) I recently finished reading, and I thought should be posted here. A full disclosure of events would, I am afraid to say, be far more horrifying. The country that continually supports and arms murderous regimes worldwide, and overthrows democratically elected governments (we provided the model that the US has employed in far greater scope) effectively enslaving the populations of these vulnerable countries worldwide - my country - should have every leader and cabinet, probably in its entire history, tried at the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity. All leaders would be executed if put to a fair trial, no doubt.

While many of these facts are dated further back in history, I post in this sub-forum due to the fact that these crimes against humanity and breaches of localised and international law are still going on. The official line of 'humanitarian intervention' is still to this day being used as a means to promote British elitists' interests and further the wealth of the few at the expense of the many. While they were shouting about how bad Milosevic was, we were actively supporting and arming regimes FAR worse in the likes of Indonesia (with East Timor), Turkey (with the Kurds) and Russia (In Chechnya)

I am sure that if most people were aware of just how corrupt, how horrifyingly murderous, and - to be perfectly honest - just how collectively evil our corporate controlled governements have been in the past - and is right now - then there would be enough of an outcry to actually do something about its role in the world.

The book (Web of Deceit - Mark Curtis) was written by the excellent investigative journalist who, in the mid 1990s, was responsible for uncovering Britain's role in the Indonesian massacre that took place in 1965 (first printed in the Observer after the Guardian editor refused). He bases the majority of his material on previously classified government documents (many more of which are still classified - one can only imagine the untold horrors they must hold), so, as it is documented historical record, there cannot even be the slightest argument in defence of these (or other) atrocities around the world.

1947 Foreign Office describes Middle East oil in secret document as 'a vital prize for any power interested in world influence or domination'.

1948 Britain declares 'emergency' in Malaya and begins 12-year war to defeat rebels, who are mainly Chinese. Britain secretly describes war as 'in defence of [the] rubber industry' and engages in widespread bombing, draconian measures and 'ressettlement' of hundreds of thousands of people in fortified 'new villages'.

1952 October: Britain declares state of emergency in colony of Kenya. British forces conduct human rights atrocities, establish Nazi-style concentration camps and 'resettle' hundreds of thousands of people in 'protected villages'. Arounds 150,000 Africans die. [Kenya has still not recovered from this horrible incident, with their economy and natural resources still to this day controlled by corporate elites (of Britain). ]

1953 August: Musaddiq government in Iran overthrown in MI6/CIA-organised coup.Shah installed in power as per London's and Washington's plans.

1953 October: Britain conducts military intervention in British Guiana to overthrow democratically elected government.

1954 July: US overthrows Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz and US-backed junta seizes power. Britain aids US position at UN.

1956 October: Britain invades Egypt to remove nationalist president Nasser, eventually being forced to withdraw due to US and financial pressure. MI6 plans and carries out several assassination attempts against Nasser.

1957 July: Britain begins military intervention in Oman in support of extremely repressive regime against rebellion by Omani Liberation Army. SAS fights covert war and RAF conducts widespread [and indiscriminate] bombing of villages and strongholds, defeating rebels by 1959.

1958 July: Britain conducts military intervention in Jordan, ostensibly to protect regime from alleged Egyptian-backed coup.. Declassified documents suggest, however, that British planners fabricated the coup scenario to justify intervention.

1961 Death of UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold in mysterious plane crash while trying to secure peace in Congo. Recent evidence has emerged of possible MI5 involvement.

Edited February 22, 2012 by ExpandMyMind

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ExpandMyMind 5,365

1961 US begins major intervention in Vietnam. As US atrocities mount in the war that follows, Britain secretly provides US with military intelligence, arms and SAS deployments, along with diplomatic support.

1961 July: Britain conducts military intervention in Kuwait, ostensibly to defend the country from imminent Iraqi invasion. Descallified documents suggest, however, that British planners fabricated the threat to justify intervention.

1962 MI6 asnd SAS begin covert operation in North Yemen that eventually involves providing arms, funding and logistical support to royalist rebels in dirty war against pro-Egyptian republican forces. Around 200,000 die in the war.

1964 Britain begins second war in support of Oman regime, against the Popular Front for the Liberation of the Occupied Arabian Gulf, fought mainly covertly by the SAS. The 'Dhofar Rebellion' is defeated by 1975.

1965 October: Bloodbath in Indonesia begins as army moves against supporters of Indonesian Communist Party, reaching around ONE MILLION deaths. Declassified documents show Britain aids the Indonesian army in conducting the slaughter through covert operations and secret messages of support.

1968 Britain begins illegal and secret removal of 1,500 population of Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia, following agreement to lease islands to US. Whitehall conspiracy begins, contending there are no indigenous inhabitants.

1970 July: British coup in Oman overthrows Sultan and installs his son. Sultan Qaboos remains in power today.

1975 December: Indonesia invades East Timor, leading to 200,000 deaths. In secret cable, British ambassador to Indonesia says Indonesia 'should absorb the territory as soon as unobtrusively possible' and that Britain 'should avoid taking sides against the Indonesian government'.

US begins covert intervention agsinst Nicaragua, training contra rebels in sabotage and terrorist operations. Britain provides strong diplomatic support for the US and nod and wink to 'security' company, KMS, to train and recruit contra guerillas and conduct gun-running operations.

1983 October: US invades GRenada. British governemtn privately furious at US failure to consult in invasion of Commonwealth country, but publicly backs intervention.

1985 First contract with Saudi Arabia signed

in massive Al Yamamah arms deal. With second deal in 1988, overall worth is around £50 billion.

1986 Spring: MI6 begins supplying Afghan mojahidin groups with 'Blowpipe' shoulder-launched missiles, some of which are used to shoot down passenger airliners.

1986 April: US conducts air raids on Libya. Britain allows use of British air bases and provides string public support.

1989 December: US invades Panama. Britain is only major state to unstintingly support US.

1991 January: Us, Britain and coalition begin massive bombing campaign against Iraq to force withdrawal from Kuwait following its invasion the previous August.

1991 April: Britain and US establish 'no fly zones' in northern and southern Iraw. They begin covert and permament war of bombing in the zones.

1994 April: Rwanda genocide begins, quickly killing a million people. Britain effectively aids the slaughter by helping to reduce UN force that could have presented the killings, in helping to delay other plans for intervention and in resisting use of the term 'genocide' which would have obligated the international community to act.

1996 MoD quietly send first of several training teams to assist Saudi Arabia in 'internal security' as part of wider support to Saudi Arabian National Guard, the force that protects the ruling family.

1996 February: Assassination and coup attempt against Libya's colonel Qadafi with, according to former MI5 officer David Shayler, MI6 funds and backing.

1996 April: British-supplied Scorpian light tanks used in Indonesia to repress demonstrators. It is the first of eight known occassions in 1996-2000 that British armoured cars are used for internal repression [in violation of British and International Law. Blair governement continues to arm Indonesia.

1997 February: Labour leader Tony Blair reassures BAE Systems, Britain's largest arms company, that 'winning exports is vital to the long term success of Britain's defence industry' [going on to operate as a personal spokesperson for the company, all over the world].

1998 December: US and Britain begin four-day heavy bombing capaign against Iraq, followed by weeks-long secret escalation of bombing in 'no fly zones'.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ExpandMyMind 5,365

1999 march: Britain and NATO begin bombing campaign against Milosevic's Yugoslavia over Kosovo. The humanitarian catastrophe that Western leaders claim they are prevented is in reality precipitated by NATO bombing.

1999 April: Former members of Kenyan Mau Mau movement announce they are suing the British government for human rights atrocities carried out in the 1950s.

1999 August/September: Around 5,000 are killed in East Timor and 500,000 forced to flee from Indonesian-backed terror around the vote for independence. Britain continues arms sales to Jakarta and finally agrees only to delay not stop them [the Indonesian forces receive the weapons in a mere four months], while inviting Indonesia to an arms fair in Britain. Blair government tries to take credit for stopping Indonesian violence by helping to establish UN peace enforcement mission.

2001 August: US and Britain secretly step up bombing campaign in 'no fly zones' in Iraq.

2001 October: US and Britain begin massive bombing campaign against Al Qaida and Taliban regime in Afghanistan following terrorist attacks of September 11th. Civilian death in the war [by 2003] outnumber those killed on September the 11th.

2001 November: At the World Trade Organisation summit in Qatar, Britain with EU allies tries to force 'new issues' on the WTO's negotiating agenda in face of opposition from developing countries. The latter remain united and the decision is delayed for two years.

2002 Foreign Office website continues to lie that there are 'no indigenous inhabitants' of the Chagos Islands, while Foreign Office continues to block islanders' return.

2002 August: With full-scale war against Iraq appearing imminent, US and Britain secretly step up bombing campaign in 'no fly zones'.

2002 October: In midst of continuing Russian atrocities in Chechnya, Tony Blair says 'it is important to understand the Russian perspective'.

2003 March: After months of build-up, US and Britain launch war against Iraq, discarding the UN weapons inspection process and bypassing the UN Security Council.

Enjoy. The chronology of events above only dates to 2003 (when the book was published), but it is clear to see that nothing has changed - and indeeed, if anything, the policies have worsened and escalated.

Feel free to research any of the events mentioned. Thanks.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Dirty Bubble 0

The world isn't a rosy place. Every country engages in 'morally questionable' activities to ensure that they are strategically secure. And I for one would certainly prefer to live in a country that practices this rather than one that doesn't take steps to ensure the security of its assets, civilians and future.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ExpandMyMind 5,365

I can understand your wishes for Britain to promote the interest on its people - but these policies were not created and carried out with any such interests at heart. These were carried out with the sole purpose of making the ELITES - the same elites who are cursed worldwide for the state they have left the, not only British, but, world economy in - even richer at the expense of the peasants of third world countries around the world. This is truly indefensible and inexcusable for someone with even the most basic sense of morality.

And even at that, the welfare of our own people means nothing if the policies commit the deaths of even a small number Of people, never mind the millions of people who have died or been killed as a direct result of our government's actions. That's a Hitler and Stalin mentality right there. Horrible, to the bone.

Edited February 22, 2012 by ExpandMyMind

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Dirty Bubble 0

I can understand your wishes for Britain to promote the interest on its people - but these policies were not created and carried out with any such interests at heart. These were carried out with the sole purpose of making the ELITES - the same elites who are cursed worldwide for the state they have left the, not only British, but, world economy in - even richer at the expense of the peasants of third world countries around the world. This is truly indefensible and inexcusable for someone with even the most basic sense of morality.

And even at that, the welfare of our own people means nothing if the policies commit the deaths of even a small number Of people, never mind the millions of people who have died or been killed as a direct result of our government's actions. That's a Hitler and Stalin mentality right there. Horrible, to the bone.

I agree with you to some extent. There is clearly a political 'elite' class who regard themselves as superior to the average person but as to whether or not there is some heavily orchestrated conspiracy spanning decades it something I'm not sure that can be taken seriously. We are talking about the government after all, it takes them long enough to say, fill up a few potholes. I think the majority of your points and dates raised are merely isolated incidents that this political class deals with as each new situation arises.

A 'positive' consequence of this though is that although the majority of the UK's population do not enjoy the millionaire lifestyles of such elites, the living standard is much higher than most of the world, something that would not be possible unless we broke the rules occasionally.

It's not right, but it's necessary.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mr Right Wing 576

I can understand your wishes for Britain to promote the interest on its people - but these policies were not created and carried out with any such interests at heart. These were carried out with the sole purpose of making the ELITES - the same elites who are cursed worldwide for the state they have left the, not only British, but, world economy in - even richer at the expense of the peasants of third world countries around the world. This is truly indefensible and inexcusable for someone with even the most basic sense of morality.

And even at that, the welfare of our own people means nothing if the policies commit the deaths of even a small number Of people, never mind the millions of people who have died or been killed as a direct result of our government's actions. That's a Hitler and Stalin mentality right there. Horrible, to the bone.

The British people enjoy a high quality of life. We have cars, houses, computers, televisions, NHS, social security, education, etc, etc. Threats to that quality of life pop up all the time.

For instance Gaddafi might decide he's going to nationalise his nations branch of BP. BP may have gone multi-national but its still a British company. Looking at the money BP shareholders invested and the potential lose of tax revenue for our economy do you really expect the British Government to put up with that?

The British Government looks after its people, businesses and counters any threats to our economy. Thats not immoral and if you think it is then thank God you arent Prime Minister because I cam see you being incapable of making difficult decisions.

Money makes the world go around. You want an operation, an education, a car, petrol in your car, food on your plate, a roof over your head, it all needs paying for. Trade plays a big part in that and as an advanced nation one commodity which sells quite well for us is weapons. Our leaders are not corrupt, they arent immoral, they act to balance the books which means kicking butt every now and again when another country does something to threaten our finances.

Share on other sites

Manfred von Dreidecker 29,578

What is the purpose behind this, just to make everyone feel Guilty for not overthrowing the Elite?

If only the assassinations of Milosevic and gadaffi had been carried out, it might have saved a whole lot of trouble, i can't help thinking.

And really, supporting "US Atrocities" in Vietnam is stretching things a bit, surely. Frankly, i think Wilson was very brave to resist pressure to get involved. And "British government privately furious at US failure to consult in invasion of Commonwealth country, but publicly backs intervention." That too goes on the Horrible Record? This very brave Journalist seems unfamiliar with the normal workings of Diplomacy.

And when did Britain actively support and arm Russia? How about a list of all the dodgy and dubious regimes that the USSR has armed and assisted?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ExpandMyMind 5,365

There are plenty of countries in the world who's populations have good lifestyles without the need for actions like ours (Sweden and other countries similar actually have a HIGHER standard of living than us). To say that because these elites are rich, we benefit is entirely untrue. How does some fat-cat sitting in a mansion with a bank account full of money provide for me? In fact, he even TAKES from the taxpayer through various government subsidies and tax-breaks! The one argument you could make would be our massive defence industry providing jobs (second largest in the world), but even then, it only employs around 1-2% of our population. How much of a hit would it really be for us to simply stop selling weapons to those with horrid human rights records?

And these are not isolated incidents or part of some large conspiracy 'theory', this is the proven way that our country operates, and our institutionalised foreign policy.

How can anyone claim that, for instance, funding, arming, diplomatically supporting and privately (not so private now though) encouraging the mass slaughter of a million Indonesians to make way for British corporations to plunder THEIR resources, making the corporations - not our people - more wealthy, in any way justifiable so that we can, as is incorrectly assumed, own TVs and cars? What the hell?

I can't believe that someone would seriously try to justify this sort of behaviour.

There are many forms of simple moral tests that can be performed just to shine some objectivity on this. To do so we have to scale this down quite a bit and see if the same lack if morals would be applied. Say, for instance, there was a gangster with a large family to look after. This gangster went around honest and hard working shopkeepers and decided that he was going to, by force, take a cut of their earnings, basically taking control of this person's own resources and killing those shopkeepers who refuse, so as to set an example to others. Should this gangster be allowed to continue, just to satisfy his family's luxurious lifestyle? If the answer to this question in your mind is no, as in any decent human being's mind it should be, then how on earth can you in earnest claim that our governments are correct in doing so? Especially when the scale is FAR grander, with thousands, hundreds of thousands, and even millions suffering as a result? It is completely and utterly morally bankrupt, disgusting, and far greater than shameful to suggest any such thing.

If something is illegal and immoral in our own country, then how can it possibly be alright for the same acts to be carried out on an international scale? The argument for such atrocities dies immediately unless someone is employing clear double standards. It is actually embarrassing for to see this form of apologistic nonsense employed.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ExpandMyMind 5,365

The purpose of this thread is to make people aware of how our government acts and the real reasons behind doing so.

We secretly sent SAS regiments to fight the Vietnamese, 747. And in actively supporting any such war, we contribute to the mass killings and destruction.

Russia became one of our greatest allies in the 90s. Our defence industry has had many contracts with the Russians since that time. We supported what happened in Chechnya, first behind closed doors, with the weakestform of criticism, and then after 9/11 all pretences were dropped and the Chechnyans vilified and painted merely as 'terrorists' and Russia's actions justified to 'fight the war on terror'.

How is publically supporting the invasion of a sovereign Commonwealth nation by the US, for a means for them to install and promote their own elites' corporate interests not a valid point when looking at this picture?

And it's hardly Godwinned to state the truth. They WERE concentration camps, and of Nazi-style. Besides the fact it was written in a book and not an Internet forum, which is where that 'law' applies.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Corp 1,423

Britain has done some very questionable things and some outright evil things. They should acknowledge these crimes (and not everything on that list is a crime) and work to better themselves. That being said they're like every single major country in history. A bias list doesn't make them some big evil. There are plenty of other countries who have been just as bad and a lot of them who have been far worst.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mr Right Wing 576

The purpose of this thread is to make people aware of how our government acts and the real reasons behind doing so.

We secretly sent SAS regiments to fight the Vietnamese, 747. And in actively supporting any such war, we contribute to the mass killings and destruction.

Russia became one of our greatest allies in the 90s. Our defence industry has had many contracts with the Russians since that time. We supported what happened in Chechnya, first behind closed doors, with the weakestform of criticism, and then after 9/11 all pretences were dropped and the Chechnyans vilified and painted merely as 'terrorists' and Russia's actions justified to 'fight the war on terror'.

How is publically supporting the invasion of a sovereign Commonwealth nation by the US, for a means for them to install and promote their own elites' corporate interests not a valid point when looking at this picture?

And it's hardly Godwinned to state the truth. They WERE concentration camps, and of Nazi-style. Besides the fact it was written in a book and not an Internet forum, which is where that 'law' applies.

You're reading anti-British propaganda.

Its one sided distortions. Where are all the terrorist attacks and murders that the Chechnyans did to Russia in your book? Where is the talk about the cold war and spread of Communism with Vietnam?

What about Lockerbie? What about Gaddifi funding and training the IRA? What about Saddam Husseins spoils of war compaign against the Kurds?

Your book is anti-British and I think that if you arent able to ask yourself 'is this material biased?' you shouldnt be reading it.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Flibbertigibbet 21

Remote Viewer

Member

21

503 posts

Gender:Female

Location:UK

“I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right.”
― P.T. Barnam

There are plenty of countries in the world who's populations have good lifestyles without the need for actions like ours (Sweden and other countries similar actually have a HIGHER standard of living than us). To say that because these elites are rich, we benefit is entirely untrue. How does some fat-cat sitting in a mansion with a bank account full of money provide for me? In fact, he even TAKES from the taxpayer through various government subsidies and tax-breaks! The one argument you could make would be our massive defence industry providing jobs (second largest in the world), but even then, it only employs around 1-2% of our population. How much of a hit would it really be for us to simply stop selling weapons to those with horrid human rights records?

And these are not isolated incidents or part of some large conspiracy 'theory', this is the proven way that our country operates, and our institutionalised foreign policy.

How can anyone claim that, for instance, funding, arming, diplomatically supporting and privately (not so private now though) encouraging the mass slaughter of a million Indonesians to make way for British corporations to plunder THEIR resources, making the corporations - not our people - more wealthy, in any way justifiable so that we can, as is incorrectly assumed, own TVs and cars? What the hell?

I can't believe that someone would seriously try to justify this sort of behaviour.

There are many forms of simple moral tests that can be performed just to shine some objectivity on this. To do so we have to scale this down quite a bit and see if the same lack if morals would be applied. Say, for instance, there was a gangster with a large family to look after. This gangster went around honest and hard working shopkeepers and decided that he was going to, by force, take a cut of their earnings, basically taking control of this person's own resources and killing those shopkeepers who refuse, so as to set an example to others. Should this gangster be allowed to continue, just to satisfy his family's luxurious lifestyle? If the answer to this question in your mind is no, as in any decent human being's mind it should be, then how on earth can you in earnest claim that our governments are correct in doing so? Especially when the scale is FAR grander, with thousands, hundreds of thousands, and even millions suffering as a result? It is completely and utterly morally bankrupt, disgusting, and far greater than shameful to suggest any such thing.

If something is illegal and immoral in our own country, then how can it possibly be alright for the same acts to be carried out on an international scale? The argument for such atrocities dies immediately unless someone is employing clear double standards. It is actually embarrassing for to see this form of apologistic nonsense employed.

If you don't like our British way of life and prosperity, then why don't you leave and live in a third world country.

Oh, I see that you're in Scotland, so that's exactly what you'll be doing.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ExpandMyMind 5,365

Lol that was a belter flibber. Truly made me laugh. Though I'd watch what you say about Scotland, if you are being serious, as the site owner/administrator is Scottish, as far as I'm aware.

But why should I leave my country just because its leaders have decimated its name? THEY should leave, if anyone.

And I didn't say anything about our British way of life or prosperity. My posts have been about our foreign policy.

Right Wing, that book is only 'biased' in that it uncovers the documented record. How can hundreds of quotes from British leaders and officials and secret intelligence files be biased? The actions and inactions speak for themselves. It is a book about Britain, why would it have extensive information on the horrors of a load of other countries (and it does go into some detail on other countries - mainly ones we have supported). That's like saying a book on Stalinist Russia should mention every other country, or a book on the Romans should, by default, mention the Greeks or the Persians. It has almost no logic whatsoever - it is, by definition, a history book ABOUT Britain.

And why do you bring up other countries as a means of deflection of criticism? Of course there are those who have done worse, at times, but I live in my country, and feel horrible for its actions - that have been hidden from the public! - which is why I have posted about them and which is why the author wrote about them. Besides, everyone knows about the horrors of the regimes you speak of, very few know the extent of my own country's most recent horrors.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mr Right Wing 576

Lol that was a belter flibber. Truly made me laugh. Though I'd watch what you say about Scotland, if you are being serious, as the site owner/administrator is Scottish, as far as I'm aware.

But why should I leave my country just because its leaders have decimated its name? THEY should leave, if anyone.

And I didn't say anything about our British way of life or prosperity. My posts have been about our foreign policy.

Right Wing, that book is only 'biased' in that it uncovers the documented record. How can hundreds of quotes from British leaders and officials and secret intelligence files be biased? The actions and inactions speak for themselves. It is a book about Britain, why would it have extensive information on the horrors of a load of other countries (and it does go into some detail on other countries - mainly ones we have supported). That's like saying a book on Stalinist Russia should mention every other country, or a book on the Romans should, by default, mention the Greeks or the Persians. It has almost no logic whatsoever - it is, by definition, a history book ABOUT Britain.

And why do you bring up other countries as a means of deflection of criticism? Of course there are those who have done worse, at times, but I live in my country, and feel horrible for its actions - that have been hidden from the public! - which is why I have posted about them and which is why the author wrote about them. Besides, everyone knows about the horrors of the regimes you speak of, very few know the extent of my own country's most recent horrors.

Typical Scot

All he wants to do is rebel against London.

We arent enemies anymore (well except for football) so stop looking for things that arent there in the Governments actions. Go get drunk and meet yourself a nice, pretty English girl instead.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Helen of Annoy 22,773

While they were shouting about how bad Milosevic was, we were actively supporting and arming regimes FAR worse ...

Shouting how bad he was? Maybe, but UK was his main sponsor and absurdities like “Serbia, the leading authority in the region” or “West Balkan package” still originate from UK. For a set of reasons (which I’m not going to explain if there’s no need) Yugoslavia is still not abandoned British project.

And I wouldn’t be so offended with that ****en Yugoslavia that is so essential for some who have no right to look my way after 1990s, if it wasn’t meant to be Greater Serbia like in first two versions too.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ExpandMyMind 5,365

Ouch, the personal attacks are comin' at me noo, are they no (not directed at Helen)? Somebody's lookin' fur a malkie a think... Haha ;o)

I have nothing against English people and have had many English friends through the course of my life. My qualms are quite clearly with our government.

And just for the record: you went from justifying British atrocities - with me providing an analogy that rips a black hole in your void of morality opinion - to then trying to deflect crticism by bringing into the argument other regimes - an argument which I also showed the falacy of - to personal insults directed at my brethren. Kinda makes the weakness of your stance shine through, naw?

Edited February 22, 2012 by ExpandMyMind

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ExpandMyMind 5,365

Shouting how bad he was? Maybe, but UK was his main sponsor and absurdities like “Serbia, the leading authority in the region” or “West Balkan package” still originate from UK. For a set of reasons (which I’m not going to explain if there’s no need) Yugoslavia is still not abandoned British project.

And I wouldn’t be so offended with that ****en Yugoslavia that is so essential for some who have no right to look my way after 1990s, if it wasn’t meant to be Greater Serbia like in first two versions too.

Yuck.

Fair points, Helen. Indeed they are. Did you also know that (and let us all let go of the absurd notion that the intervention had anything to do with humanitarian issues, except to sell the war to the public) it was known that any intervention would precipitate more attacks and ethnic cleansing by Milosevic (which is exactly what happened)?

This country seems to love bombing places and leaving a horrible mess. Just look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mr Right Wing 576

Ouch, the personal attacks are comin' at me noo, are they no? somebody's lookin' fur a malkie a think... Haha ;o)

I have nothing against English people and have had many English friends through the course of my life. My qualms are quite clearly with our government.

And just for the record: you went from justifying British atrocities - with me providing an analogy that rips a black hole in your void of morality opinion - to then trying to deflect crticism by bringing into the argument other regimes - an argument which I also showed the falacy of - to personal insults directed at my brethren. Kinda makes the weakness of your stance shine through, naw?

Hey, I like Scots too even if you dont get English humour. Mind you I'm not too impressed at living next to a country where the men wear skirts but hey you cant have everything can you? Haha

When you say the British Government is immoral and quote examples the reason why I then talk about those 'regimes' as you call them is to show you they arent sweet and innocent. Gaddafi was a maddog who promoted terrorist attacks, plane hi-jackings and helped the IRA. He got what he deserved and I'm sure a great deal of your people living around the Lockerbie area hope he's burning in hell right now.

We live in a dog eat dog world where other nations will and do play games with us.

Share on other sites

itsnotoutthere 1,488

What is the purpose behind this, just to make everyone feel Guilty for not overthrowing the Elite?

If only the assassinations of Milosevic and gadaffi had been carried out, it might have saved a whole lot of trouble, i can't help thinking.

And really, supporting "US Atrocities" in Vietnam is stretching things a bit, surely. Frankly, i think Wilson was very brave to resist pressure to get involved. And "British government privately furious at US failure to consult in invasion of Commonwealth country, but publicly backs intervention." That too goes on the Horrible Record? This very brave Journalist seems unfamiliar with the normal workings of Diplomacy.

And when did Britain actively support and arm Russia? How about a list of all the dodgy and dubious regimes that the USSR has armed and assisted?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ExpandMyMind 5,365

Hey, I like Scots too even if you dont get English humour. Mind you I'm not too impressed at living next to a country where the men wear skirts but hey you cant have everything can you? Haha

When you say the British Government is immoral and quote examples the reason why I then talk about those 'regimes' as you call them is to show you they arent sweet and innocent. Gaddafi was a maddog who promoted terrorist attacks, plane hi-jackings and helped the IRA. He got what he deserved and I'm sure a great deal of your people living around the Lockerbie area hope he's burning in hell right now.

We live in a dog eat dog world where other nations will and do play games with us.

The vast majority of examples given - and more so the others in the book - all the populations did was try to create nationalist based systems that looked after their own people and used their own resources for the good of said people - it just happened to be at the expense of British related corporations and therefore our government was then abused (by the people working in it) and our armed forces also used to further elites' agendas.

Let me be clear, for I feel there may be some misunderstanding: I did not selectively pick out the chronological events from the first three posts. They were not hand picked or any such thing, nor would they all have been bad if carried out (like Milosevic and Gadaffi attempts, though we would not have been carrying them out for the good of their people - anyone who thinks so is deluding themselves), I merely typed out a loose list of events found at the end of the book and supplied a link to text from the book from Google. Maybe people did not realise that? The mention of Milosevic and Gadaffi are references to events in the book that shows Blatant British double standards when it serves elitist agendas. Calling for gadaffi's head while committing and supporting far worse atrocities around the globe. Does that make things any clearer?

I think what needs concentrating on are the events that decimate populations of civilians and similar such things. Those events are why I starts this thread.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Helen of Annoy 22,773

Fair points, Helen. Indeed they are. Did you also know that (and let us all let go of the absurd notion that the intervention had anything to do with humanitarian issues, except to sell the war to the public) it was known that any intervention would precipitate more attacks and ethnic cleansing by Milosevic (which is exactly what happened)?

This country seems to love bombing places and leaving a horrible mess. Just look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya...

Sure. And it gets better. Croatia was under arms embargo, we couldn’t buy weapons to defend ourselves and that was supposed to stop the war. Disarmed to ensure the Yugoslavian Army, seized by Serbia, third army in Europe, will somehow manage to crush country of 5 million people. Of course, that could have stopped the war since dead people don’t fight, but our determination to stay alive was underestimated.

Not to mention what happened later in B&H, in Srebrenica, where UN forces convinced Muslim population to give up the scarce weapons they had to ensure the massacre will go with minimal Serbian casualties. Brave chetniks, they prefer their victims unarmed.

Humanitarian efforts of various people, from Lord Oven to Mitterand (OK, that was not directly UK’s fault ) who personally flew to Sarajevo to prove it’s not under siege... unforgettable.

But it’s forgivable, believe it or not, most people I know, both from Croatia and Bosnia, would forgive if that bizarre sympathy for Greater Serbia would stop already.

Serbia as simultaneous British and Russian proxy in Balkans may have seemed like good idea in 1918, but I seriously think it’s time to move on now.

Besides, US is starting to notice what’s going on and it doesn’t fit in their idea of controlled mess. (That’s how this last war ended, by the way, and that’s why it ended in Dayton instead of any European city).

But the cold-hearted and short-sighted politics is not British specialty. It’s just that UK still has influential position inherited from some other times and it’s not very likely that influence will last much longer.

In other words, I hope to see war criminal named Dragan Vasiljković extradited to Croatia finally. Australia is not extraditing him for unexplained reasons, though everyone over here knows it’s because of fear he might actually say too much on trial.

And so on, I don’t want to hijack the thread.

I’ll just add that thinking about UK role in ex-Yugoslavia made me realize they should make Serbia member of Commonwealth. Then Serbia can also become a part of Russian federation and if that doesn't create the ultimate mess ever I don't know what will. United Europe can drop dead just looking at that masterpiece of hypocrisy.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ExpandMyMind 5,365

Thank you for a perspective that is quite unique to the forums, Helen. I hope that things work out for the best, but the cynic In me (or could it even be the realist?) tells me that day could be quite some time in the future.